Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City - Review

 

Even amongst the most maligned genre that is the video game movie, Paul W.S. Anderson’s Resident Evil series has been… well, to put it plainly, just bad to say the least. That’s why the prospect of a reboot is so refreshing for series fans, as even a bad film that at least looks like its source material would be welcome. Well, fans got what they wished for, as “Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City” is absolutely far more faithful to the source material while also embracing the 90s aesthetic and cheese of the first two games to be the most fun you can have with a film that’s also a pile of hot garbage.

Following a cast of series mainstays, the film takes place on one night in 1998 in Raccoon City, a town founded by the Umbrella Corporation for its workers to live in. The film follows two groups; a collection of Special Tactics and Rescue Service (STARS) members consisting of Jill Valentine, played by Hannah John-Kamen (“Ant-Man and the Wasp,” “Killjoys”), Chris Redfield, played by Robbie Amell (“Upload,” “The Tomorrow People”), and Albert Wesker, played by Tom Hopper (“The Umbrella Academy,” “Black Sails”), among others as they investigate a disappearance at the Spencer Mansion on the outskirts of Raccoon City and a small team of Claire Redfield, played by Kaya Scodelario (“Skins,” “The Maze Runner”) and Leon S. Kennedy, played by Avan Jogia (“Zombieland: Double Tap,” “Victorious”) as they attempt to escape from the city before it is destroyed.

For anyone even remotely familiar with the games, this plot will seem immediately familiar as it is essentially the first and second games squished into one narrative. It alternates back and forth at a decent pace and different characters overlap with each other in interesting ways, delivering the greatest hits of arguably the series’ best games for those who don’t want to pick up a controller.

The cast does a fairly decent job bringing these beloved characters to life, putting enough of a spin on things to make them feel distinct from their game counterparts without forgetting what made them so beloved in the first place. The STARS crew all chew the scenery plenty during their adventure, delivering their big action star moments with bravado and cheese, hamming it up to deliver some dialogue that must be heard to be believed.

Meanwhile Scodelario and Jogia prove to be much closer to the film’s heart and soul. The pair have great chemistry and maintain a decent level of emotional investment while not being above an eye roll as a character spouts a particularly cheesy line. Make no mistake, they, like the STARS crew, are hamming it up at every turn, fully embracing the 90s vibe that the film encapsulates. None of these performances could be called great, but they’re all extremely entertaining.

That right there is how to describe this film. It does everything it possibly can to provide an entertaining experience over a particularly good one. No one ever would have expected “Welcome to Raccoon City” to win any awards, and so its as if writer/director Johannes Roberts (“47 Meters Down,” “The Strangers: Prey At Night”) just said “fuck it” and made a film so absolutely in love with Resident Evil as he is. Watching Neal McDonough (“Desperate Housewives,” “Captain America: The First Avenger”) not only play William Birkin, but deliver some of his fantastic mad scientist ravings is a Resident Evil fan's dream come true.

It embraces how weird the series is at its core. Yes it's about zombies, but there’s also corporate mutilation, mansions filled with puzzles, a town being poisoned, the world’s worst orphanage, and many more twisted bizarre elements that the label of “zombie game” just don’t do justice. Roberts tries his best to bring as many of them to the big screen as possible, with wildly varying degrees of success. The iconic RPD building? Lisa Trevor? The Orphanage? The piano in Spencer Mansion? All brought to life wonderfully in a way that will do series fans damn proud. The Lickers? Really anything in CGI? Not so much.

This is a film that thrives on its cheese, throwing logic out the window to provide a simple, fun time for all. Is it good? Well, that’s open to interpretation. It's sure as hell entertaining, but good is another thing entirely. The script manages to pack in so many hammy one liners, game references, and 90s references in to 100 minutes that it can be dizzying. Its best elements are those pulled straight from the games, as the ones made up for the film, like the changes to Claire and Chris’s backstory, just feel confusing when shoehorned into the rest of the game’s narrative.

What “Welcome to Raccoon City” is, as a film, is pure and total cheese. This is a film that just wants to have a good time, and packs itself to the gills with hammy acting and dialogue, lavish sets that seem as if they’re taken directly from the games, and an overall sense of sneaking self awareness that permeates the entire project. For fans, it’s a damn good time that knows how to cheese and please in equal measure. Is it good? More than that, can those who don’t love the games enjoy it too? Well, for that, your mileage may vary. 2.5/5

House of Gucci - Review

 

Given that this is his second theatrical release of 2021, Ridley Scott () is clearly having a bit of a moment. He’s never really disappeared from the film-making landscape, unlike some other directors, and really the longest gap between films for him was actually between 2017, where he also directed two films in one year, and 2021. Yet, like 2017, one of his 2021 films was critically lauded and will likely be a focus of the year’s awards circuit. That film, unfortunately, is not “House of Gucci.”

In simplest of terms, and we’ll get into why it's hard to describe the plot more later, “House of Gucci” centers on Patrizia Reggiani, played with thick cartoonish accents and a borderline actual cat’s purr by Lady Gaga (“A Star is Born (2018),” “American Horror Story: Hotel”), and her marriage to Maurizio Gucci, played with thick rimmed glasses nerd chic by Adam Driver (“Marriage Story,” “Star Wars: The Last Jedi”), and the ensuing power struggle within the Gucci family, such as patriarchal uncle Aldo, played by Al Pacino (“The Godfather,” “The Irishman”), and oddball cousin Paolo, played by Jared Leto (“Blade Runner 2049,” “Dallas Buyers Club”), for their fashion empire, a struggle set off in no small part by Patrizia.

There is a lot going on here, and the film’s ample two-hour-and-thirty-eight minute runtime doesn’t do it any favors. Throughout the entire film there’s murder, sex, greed, drugs, theft, lawsuits, bribery, extortion, etc. Just another day in the life of a rich and powerful family, and yet somehow that length saps every bit of tension from the film. So much of the film could easily be cut with no effect on the actual ending. It’s clear that Patrizia and Maurizio’s romance turned power struggle is the central conflict, and yet so much time is spent on other things.

It’s great that Scott wants to show us as much as possible, but even as the old adage “show, don’t tell” is typically applicable, there are also times you can just tell. It’s hard to tell who’s fault this would be, whether blame lays on Scott as director or Becky Johnston (“The Prince of Tides,” “Seven Years in Tibet”) or Roberto Bentivegna as writers, but there’s just too much going on. It’s too long, with too many subplots, and too many scenes for each plot. There are clear areas where things could simply be cut off and easily slice 15-20 minutes from the run-time.

However, this problem is further exacerbated by the fact that what’s here still has some massive gaps in plot. At one point, after being constantly told throughout the film that Maurizio wants to run Gucci well, and doesn’t want to get into financial troubles like his cousin or uncle. Then, suddenly, two-thirds through the film his house is raided by financial police and he escapes into the snowy mountains on a motorbike. We never see anything prior to this that would give any indication that he’s had a change of heart or spending. It just happens out of nowhere. When the reason for the ransacking is finally given, it's less of a tense moment and more of an exacerbated “really?”

But that’s only the plot, let’s not forget the performances carrying this script through. Love or hate her, Gaga absolutely will throw herself into her cherry-picked film roles, and this is no exception. She speaks with bravado and thick accents, with hand movements so exaggerated they would make any Manhattan deli owner blush. At times, her vocal purr is so pronounced, you’d think she was auditioning for “Cats” two years too late. It’s definitely a big performance, yet it's hard to say if it's good or not.

Driver, thankfully, plays things a bit straighter. His Maurizio is one that constantly flips between loving and hating. For every moment of awkward nerdy chic, with a toothy grin and hand-waving of the Gucci fame and fortune, there are moments that seem sinister, as if for his entire life he’s been planning the downfall and events of the film. It’s a fabulous double edged sword and is yet another in a line of recent roles from Driver where he seems committed to playing horrible men.

The film’s supporting cast, though, are all playing on Gaga’s level. Leto is absolutely cranking it up to 11, turning in a performance that suggests he was possibly told the film was a comedy, not a drama. Pacino is a delightfully scummy uncle figure that relishes in the excess and is simply having a blast. Jeremy Irons (“Dead Ringers,” “Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice”), while not in the film much, is a sobering quiet bright spot, showing how to play big without losing the realism or audience in the farce. Salma Hayek (“Frida,” “The Hitman’s Bodyguard”) plays Patrizia’s friend and confidant, television psychic Giuseppina “Pina” Auriemma, and she’s the straight man to Gaga’s Patrizia, constantly coming off as the more grounded, level headed one compared to her, despite often being surrounded by tarot cards and spell candles.

It's the kind of cast that seems like they should work because, like everything else in the film, on paper they’re genius. Yet, the execution is everything, and “House of Gucci” can’t figure out what kind of tone it wants to have. There are moments of huge excess, of staring at Lady Gaga trying on outfit after outfit, dancing around a Gucci store, of giant apartments and 50 foot tables of food looking out over Italian waters. It's the kind of excess that’s inherently comical, and while the film does try to dive into those elements, it wants to have its cake and eat it too. Everything is at its best when its playing those elements up, embracing the camp and the inherent joy in watching Gag chew out a former lover of Maurizio’s in a puffy white winter coat while drinking coffee at a ski lodge, yet that campy tone is never kept consist and eventually fades away entirely.

“House of Gucci” so badly wants to take its characters seriously, except when it doesn’t. Moments like characters discussing hit-men whilst smearing mud on each other's faces or arresting someone at the pickle-ball court come off as inherently silly but played extremely seriously. Scott and the writers want us to laugh at these characters but also take their plights to heart. It’s the opposite of something like “Succession,” which always, without fault, plays its characters to be morally reprehensible. You aren’t supposed to like them, so you don’t. “House of Gucci” wants you to hate them and their excess, yet also wants you to care deeply about everything that happens to them and it simply doesn’t work.

Of course, as if it even needed to be said, the film looks gorgeous. Yet, even that can’t be said without an asterisk. Every moment of rich European countryside or lavish mansions and cities looks beautiful, creating a sort of vacation destination highlight reel for those who want to one day be rich and famous. Yet, even as these beautiful people in beautiful clothes walk through beautiful cities, the film’s color palette is so washed out it's hard to see it all as beautiful. Maybe that’s the point, to showcase these gorgeous things in such ugly colors that it, no pun intended, shows their true colors, but it's too washed out at times. Case in point, early on the film switches to black and white for a moment, and you’d be hard pressed to notice when it happens given the already dull colors of the film up to that point.

“House of Gucci” is a fascinatingly mixed bag. Nothing about it is entirely bad, save for the pacing and run-time, and it creates this bizarre sense of duality. It's enjoyable, but not good. It has entertaining performances, but not good or great ones. It’s fabulous to look at, but also equally ugly. Watching “House of Gucci” can most closely be compared to walking into a Gucci store as someone who makes less than seven figures a year; it's gorgeous, yet exhausting and laughable. It’s fun for a spell, but not something you’d recommend to friends, nor something you’d want to go back to anytime soon. 3/5

Encanto - Review

 

You might expect Walt Disney Animation to pull out all the stops for their 60th animated feature, yet “Encanto” is a fairly routine Disney affair on the surface. Great songs, great animation, and a slightly more complicated than your average fair story. Yet, “Encanto” has far more going on under the hood than one might initially think, resulting in a film that prioritizes emotion over everything else and resulting in Disney’s best animated film since “Zootopia.”

Focusing on the family Madrigal, the film follows Mirabel as she struggles with being the only member of her family without a fantastical gift while also being the only one who notices their sentient house Casita beginning to break down. It's refreshing that, despite a pair of star-studded leads in Stephanie Beatriz (“Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” “Short Term 12”) as Mirabel and John Leguizamo (“Ice Age,” “Carlito’s Way”) as estranged uncle Bruno, most of the cast consists of Latina stars who would be otherwise widely unknown to American audiences.

It gives the project an energy of authenticity and helps to further flesh out the world through their delivery. María Cecilia Botero (“La Bruja,” “Nuevo rico, nuevo pobre”) voices Abuela Alma Madrigal, the family’s matriarch and leads the film as much as the character leads the family, and the rest of the cast consists of Mauro Castillo, Jessica Darrow (“Feast of the Seven Fishes”), Angie Cepeda (“Love in the Time of Cholera,” “Pobre Diabla”), Carolina Gaitán (“Sin senos sí hay paraíso,” “Isa TK+”), Diane Guerrero (“Orange is the New Black,” “Doom Patrol”) Wilmer Calderrama (“That 70’s Show,” “NCIS”), Adassa, Rhenzy Feliz (“Marvel’s Runaways”), and Ravi-Cabot Conyers (“#blackAF”). Given that the film focuses on a family as its central plot and conflict, each vocal performance is integral and thankfully excellent. There’s not a weak link here, either in regular speech or singing voice.

Speaking of music, Lin-Manuel Miranda (“In the Heights,” “Hamilton”) has contributed both to the story of the film and has written eight original songs for the film. Each song has a different sort of flavor, flowing between grand musical gestures. The opening track “The Family Madrigal” has a larger than life Broadway flavor to it,  with later tracks like “We Don’t Talk About Bruno” and “Surface Pressure” having a more spoken word gossip and rap flavor, respectively.

Sure, the music sounds great, but the ways they’re presented in the film feel far more physical than in previous Disney works. There’s a lot more specific looking choreography in this film, and while the opening is more of a flowing, “walking around town” kind of Disney opener, later tracks like “Bruno” or “Pressure” have specific kinds of dances. It gives these moments very certain moods, making sure the audience understands the emotions behind them not just through the music, but through the movement as well.

Beatriz and Leguizamo might be more well known for comedic roles, but the pair have excellent chemistry here in some of the film’s darker moments. Leguizamo in particular is excellent throughout the film, and is likely the breakout performance, overpowering the extreme optimism and heart of Beatriz’s Mirabel.

This is, once again, another Disney animated feature without a strict antagonist, following in the more metaphorical footsteps of works like “Ralph Breaks the Internet” and “Frozen 2.” While both of those films had issues with this concept, “Encanto” embraces the free form nature of this kind of internalized conflict. It’s a very talky film, one of the most of any recent Disney film, and a majority of the film centers around trying to solve the mystery at the core of it all. It creates a fun journey as we follow Mirabel along, trying to piece things together alongside her.

It's weird to say, given that Disney films have never really been lacking in emotion, but “Encanto” feels like their heaviest and most emotion forward film in quite a while. The focus on family and the issues and loves therein is palpable since we genuinely buy the love between all of these characters. This isn’t even getting into the various metaphorical themes at play with Mirabel not receiving a gift from the family’s magic and feeling ostracized because of it.

Of course, given the massive budget and an environment like Columbia to pull inspiration from, the entire film is a colorful, gorgeous work of art from start to finish. Each location is brimming with different texture details, and the moments when the art style shifts for specific songs make big impacts. Casita the house may not have a voice, but their presence is definitely felt throughout, thanks to some wonderfully clever uses of objects and animation on a grander scale.

The last time Disney Animation Studios broke from their sequel or princess films was with 2016’s “Zootopia” and it was without a doubt their best film in years. The same is true here, as “Encanto” embraces the musical genre with life and color. The physicality of both the animation and musical numbers is something Disney doesn’t typically do and adds so much here. A more complex than normal narrative and emotional core lends some brains to this animated outing and helps to lift “Encanto” up as one of the Mouse House’s easiest to recommend in quite a while 5/5

King Richard - Review

 

Who doesn’t know of Venus and Serena Williams? Legitimately, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who hasn’t at least heard of the sisters turned Tennis pros who are arguably two of the finest athletes of all time, let alone just in Tennis. Yet, instead of taking the typical bio-pic approach by telling their story by showing who they are, the sisters, who produced the film, writer Zach Baylin and director Reinaldo Marcus Green (“Monsters and Men,” “Joe Bell”) have opted instead to tell their story by focusing on their father.

Will Smith (“Men in Black,” “The Pursuit of Happyness”) plays the sisters’ father, Richard, with a subdued kind of intelligence and bravado. He’s the kind of man that clearly has the wheels in his brain turning at all times, even if it doesn’t seem immediately evident. Smith delivers a nuanced performance, with deep emotion and the constant sense that he’s hiding more than he shows. It creates a fascinating complex character, one that constantly teeters between easy to love and easy to hate.

For as excellent as Smith is though, the film is absolutely stolen from him by Saniyya Sidney (“Fast Color,” “The Passage”) and Demi Singleton (“Godfather of Harlem”) playing Venus and Serena, respectively. Sidney is a joyful burst of exuberant energy, showcasing a big smile and big confidence at almost every turn. Meanwhile, Singleton is a bit more downplayed, but nevertheless has a sense of confidence that few can match. When the two are on screen together, they’re electric, delivering a truly honest portrayal of sibling bonds that few can match.

In terms of supporting cast, everyone is excellent but few get a chance to shine like Smith, Sidney, or Singleton. Aunjanue Ellis (“Lovecraft Country,” “Ray”) plays Brandy Price, Venus and Serena’s mother, and she thankfully gets a good amount of time to shine. This is not an example of a mother existing in the background just to course correct the father, she gets as much training time with the girls and little moments of beauty and warmth as Smith does. Jon Bernthal (“Ford v. Ferrari,” “The Punisher”) continues to show a different side to his typical action film roots here as Rick Macci, the sisters’ sponsor and coach. He’s thick mustache and thick accent help to hide an exacerbated but kind individual frequently elated by the girls and exhausted by Richard.

This cast is essential, as are many in a good biopic, because unfortunately the film hits a crossroads between sports and biopic cliches. It's hard to judge the film too much on these, because what seems like easy examples of sports film cliches, like the incredible talent of a young player, are just how good the Williams sisters are in reality. Even when switching it up by focusing on Richard, they’re still present, and turn the film into a more formulaic piece than it otherwise could have been.

There’s also the issue of Richard. While it's hard to criticize the choice to make him the central character and the decision to tell the sisters’ story through his story, it nevertheless feels like we’re watching the tale of two incredible women by proxy of the man who “made them great”. Again, it's hard to criticize this idea because they were largely the ones who helped shape this concept, and the film does smartly course correct away from this idea in the latter half, making a conscious decision to pull back from this idea, even without commenting on it.

Yet, for all its cliches and a few iffy storytelling choices, “King Richard” understands so clearly why people love these kinds of stories. It's hard not to be inspired in some way by this tale, and hearing Serena say “I'd like other people to be like me” during an interview at 11 years old is staggering. It would seem cheesy and heavy handed if not for the incredible abilities of these two women and their father that brought this confidence to reality.

This is the kind of movie that, through its performances, its storytelling beats, and its overall feeling, puts emotion above everything else. It earns its runtime by showcasing plenty of moments where Richard, Venus, and Serena all have to choose what to do next. It doesn’t just funnel them from game to game, from low-income to fame. It purposefully showcases the choices they’re asked to make and the thought process behind each one. It’s a movie with a big gooey heart shaped center and it's never afraid to show it.

“King Richard” has a couple of minor issues, like an intersection of sports and biopic film cliches and the decision to tell the sisters’ story via their father will likely be discussed for a while, but in terms of the film itself, the performances of Smith, Sidney, and Singleton are just incredible. “King Richard” is an incredible, if predictable, story and you’d have to be dead inside to not in some way be inspired or smile at the incredible talent and tale of these two sisters. 4/5

Ghostbusters: Afterlife - Review

 

Nostalgia is one powerful drug. It can make even the most maligned properties seem rose-tinted in hindsight. Luckily, the original “Ghostbusters” film was never a victim of that, remaining in the public consciousness for decades not just due to nostalgia but also due to a high-quality script, engaging cast, and just an overall sense of fun. Despite plenty of their own charms, neither of the series’s later films, be it the direct sequel or the unfairly bashed 2016 reboot, could capture that first film’s spark. Yet, over three decades after the release of “Ghostbusters 2,” Jason Reitman (“Juno,” “Young Adult”), son of Ivan Reitman, the first two films’ director, is here to give his own take on the series his father started.

Ivan famously said years back that if he ever made a Ghostbusters film, it would be more about people sitting around talking about ghosts than actually fighting them. To his credit, he manages to provide a hearty balance of both. This is a far more introspective film than the previous ones, getting into a lot of material related to family, legacy, abandonment, and feeling like an outcast. The tone is particularly more dour than the comedies that came before it, and Ivan’s strengths as a director shine through in his ability to make the world feel grounded even as proton streams and ectoplasm go flying.

McKenna Grace (“Troop Zero,” “Spirit Untamed”) plays Phoebe, the film’s middle school-aged protagonist who is an instant and absolute charmer. Her nerdy personality is mixed with a healthy level of fascination at the new ghostly events she begins to encounter, and Grace imbues the character with this sense of pure-hearted fun. With every purposefully bad joke and deadpan statement about her love of science, it’s virtually impossible not to fall in love with this young scientist extraordinaire.

Her mother Callie and brother Trevor are played by Carrie Coon (“Gone Girl,” “The Leftovers”) and Finn Wolfhard (“Stranger Things,” “IT (2017)”), respectively, and the pair aren’t as uniformly excellent as Grace is but are still fun to be around. Coon is the best of the pair, bringing a wisecracking, blue collar energy to the proceedings, poking fun at her kids and bringing a lot of “cool mom” energy to the character. Wolfhard meanwhile seems like he’s coasting off of his work on other nostalgic horror themed entertainment. He’s fine, but the character isn’t given a lot to do apart from a cliched romance subplot that never really feels like it amounts to anything at all.

When you have Paul Rudd (“Clueless,” “Ant-Man”) in your film, it's hard to not have him steal the show, and the same is true here. Playing Phoebe’s summer school teacher, he shares her love of science and many of the film’s best moments involve him, her, and her fellow classmate Podcast, played by Logan Kim in his film debut, geeking out about the town’s bizarre earthquakes and Ghostbusters technology, with Rudd’s exuberance and charm, as well as Kim’s happy-go-lucky energy to match, shining through.

It’s in these moments that the film feels like it knows exactly what it is. This is, at its core, a film for the fans, delivering fan service and references at every turn. Ivan smartly manages to keep it on a calm enough course that it never feels like it devolves too much into unnecessary franchise self-aggrandizing, but it never avoids it either. The script, written by Ivan and Gil Kenan (“Monster House,” “Poltergeist (2015)”), is all too happy to treat the Ghostbusters like a bygone era of superheroism that never doesn’t feel at least a little bit weird.

It’s the kind of reverence that feels more appropriate for a film with the subtitle “The Force Awakens,” and seeing the busters treated with a holier than thou legendary status is eye rolling. Watching Rudd earnestly deliver lines like “You don’t know what this is? It’s a ghost trap!” feel catered to one particular kind of moviegoer and it overall saps the film of the kind of comedy that the original had, feeling more like a light drama than anything resembling comedy.

When the back-patting does happen, it feels so weirdly at odds with what’s an otherwise extremely earnest film, and it also opens up a whole mess of plot holes. I know it has to happen for the plot to happen, but in the age of YouTube and the information superhighway, you really expect me to believe that a science geek kid has never, EVER, heard of the massive supernatural scientific event that happened just barely 30 years ago?

Weirdest of all, “Afterlife”, despite having a lot of references to it, never feels like a Ghostbusters movie in the same way as the previous films. It’s far closer to the works of Spielberg, going for a “Stranger Things” or “Super 8” style of film making as opposed to the fantasy comedy roots of the series. It does work, providing a different kind of spin on the franchise, although it doesn’t necessarily feel extremely fresh or unique.

Thankfully, Ivan maintains a balance between physical and digital effects that gives the film a sense that’s somewhere between the cheesy, rubbery effects of the 80s and the earth toned realism of the 2010s. Rubber monster suits are used for close ups, and there are plenty of physical sets and environments packed with tiny little objects and details. It’s a lived in world that’s easy to get invested in on a visual level.

Is “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” entertaining? Absolutely, and it's thanks to Ivan’s character focused direction and a collection of capable and likable characters that the film manages to be as entertaining as it is despite its massively self-congratulatory nature. It’s McKenna Grace as Phoebe that sells the entire film, and if she can be so wide-eyed and enthusiastic at the prospect of this new world of science and ghosts, maybe that’s all the film needs. 3.5/5

C'mon C'mon - Review

 

A slow paced, black and white drama film would likely be the immediate enemy of a casual film viewer. Yet Mike Mills (“Beginners,” “20th Century Women”) has been here before, with dramatic family works either in color or black and white, and he’s succeeded so remarkably in the past. Nothing has changed with his latest film, “C’mon C’mon”, as he continues to showcase his intelligence and strength for humanizing, small moment dramas.

The basic premise seems like a recipe for misery on the surface. Radio journalist Johnny, played by Joaquin Phoenix (“Joker,” “Walk the Line”), is asked by his sister Viv, played by Gabby Hoffmann (“Transparent,” “Uncle Buck”), if he will come and watch his nephew, played by Woody Norman (“Poldark,” “Catastrophe”), for her while she visits her estranged husband, played by Scoot McNairy (“Argo,” “Monsters”), as she attempts to help him get checked into a facility for his mental illness.

Quite the heavy subject material, but Mills, who also wrote the film, moves through everything swiftly by tinting every moment with a slight comedic edge. There’s never any outright jokes or comedic situations; instead the authenticity of the characters and the absurdity of real life helps smiles bubble to the surface throughout the film. It’s the kind of picture that’ll leave you smiling and tearing up in equal measure, sometimes in the same scenes.

Phoenix is just about perfect. His role of Johnny lacks any “method actor” flare to hide behind, and instead becomes a showcase for Phoenix’s pure human charms. He has a big mushy heart at the center of him, and even as Johnny tries to put up some curmudgeonly walls between him and his nephew, it's impossible not to fall in love with him and his quirks.

Hoffmann is also excellent, providing a strong level headed counter to Phoenix’s flaky nature, yet not without her own quirky charms that help make Viv a beaming light of wonderful broken energy. Yet, they are both established, fantastic actors, so we don’t need to talk about them. Who we need to talk about is Woody Norman.

The young British actor hasn’t really had a breakout moment yet, but this is absolutely it. As nephew Jesse, he’s precocious and clearly has something going on in his head, but Mills is never concerned with that. Instead, Mills sets Jesse and Johnny up like an odd couple, and Norman clearly embraces that. It’s the kind of work that seems so legitimate and real that you forget you’re watching a young kid play a young kid. He disappears into it and makes you feel like the entire film is just built around him acting like a kid, unaware of the cameras and famous movie stars around him.

One of the most interesting choices the film makes is to splice in the interviews Johnny records throughout. His project, report, etc. is to interview young kids across the country about how they think the world is and how it will one day end up. This fuels much of his interactions with Jesse, as he goes from spending all day talking to kids who are practically required to respond eloquently to a young kid who clearly can’t express himself as well as them, and it creates a fabulous balance between the two.

These interviews go a step further though and help to further cement the achingly minimalist and real feeling of the picture. It’s never stated if these interviews are scripted or are real, but they feel so palpable that it helps to sell everything even more. The best way to tell this kind of simple, grounded story is to go small and minimalist, and these scenes are the cherry on top of the simplicity cake that is “C’mon C’mon.”

The score and cinematographer also help contribute to this low boil, calm realistic atmosphere. Composers Bryce and Aaron Dessner (“Big Sur,” “Transpecos”) deliver a crackling score that sounds as warm and understated as the film grain that covers the screen, and cinematographer Robbie Ryan (“The Favourite,” “Marriage Story”) shoots everything as simply as possible, going for wide open shots and close ups in long takes to sell the relationships and atmosphere.

“C’mon C’mon” is Mills’ simplest work yet. His previous features were all slightly more conventional dramady pieces, and simplicity does not a perfect film make. Yet Mills has managed to take the barest of elements and deliver a heart wrenching work of honest love. This is a slice of life picture that never feels dire or overwrought, never precocious, yet also never aimless. Phoenix, Hoffmann, and especially Norman are all superb, and it's the kind of quiet film that worms its way into your brain, but also, most importantly, your heart. 5/5

The Power of the Dog - Review

After taking over a decade of time off from directing feature films, writer/director Jane Campion (“Bright Star,” “In the Cut”) has returned with an adaptation of Thomas Savage’s most acclaimed book, “The Power of the Dog.” Don’t be fooled by the cowboy hats and wide vistas, this is not a western in the vein of “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly” or either “True Grit.” It’s a taut, deliberately paced drama that rewards those with the patience to see it through with an incredible viewing experience.

While a simplistic plot on the surface, things quickly pick up and gain more intrigue as the film progresses. On a basic level, it follows Rose Gordon, played by Kirsten Dunst (“Spider-Man (2002),” “The Beguiled (2017)”), and her son Peter, played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (“ParaNorman,” “X-Men: Apocalypse”), as they move to the home of her new husband, rancher George Burbank, played by Jesse Plemons (“Game Night,” “Breaking Bad”), and are slowly psychologically tormented by his brother Phil, played by Benedict Cumberbatch (“Doctor Strange,” “The Imitation Game”), who believes Rose to be a gold digger.

There are plenty of moments of gorgeous wide open scenery and silence throughout the film, as its very deliberate pace allows for these moments to not feel out of place. The beginning is actually front loaded with quite a bit of dialogue; Campion makes the smart decision to place the slower, quieter moments after audiences are likely already invested in the tale, meaning they’re willing to deal with the slower pace of the film’s events.

Cumberbatch is exceptional in his role. Phil is clearly a tormented man hiding secrets, as opposed to someone who seeks to just be evil for the sake of it. He plays the role delicately, weaving just enough nuance and despicable-ness in to prevent him from becoming completely sympathetic but also not robbing him of any humanity. Plemons meanwhile makes for a good foil; he’s clearly the kinder of the two brothers, more soft spoken and able to speak and listen more determinedly, and the pair are electric when they’re together.

Dunst is good, but feels a bit more unhinged than the others. Maybe it's the elements of alcohol in the story, but it feels a bit like she’s playing up to 6 or 7 while everyone else is sitting comfortably at a 5. It’s not a bad performance by any means, just feels a tad bit carried away compared to the very specific vibe of the rest of the ensemble. McPhee is a true talent here. There’s a quiet menace to his character that’s hard to nail down through the entire picture. He’s the sort of character that, like Phil, never gets a clear and specific answer. It’s a truly meaty role that McPhee dives headfirst into, creating a portrait of awkwardness that never doubles for a lack of control or confidence.

“The Power of the Dog” is going to be an interesting film to see perform over the next few months. It's the sort of project that seems like the exact opposite of the kinds of films Netflix usually pushes, so it’s commercial performance is going to be extremely intriguing. It’s not just the pacing, the film also ends in a way that is obvious but isn’t spelled out at all. Campion never spoon feeds anything, anything, to the audience, and it results in a film that asks you to come to it on its own terms.

Even if you aren’t on board for the eerie tale being spun, it’s hard to deny that it's a gorgeous film to look at and listen to. Johnny Greenwood (“There Will Be Blood,” “Phantom Thread”) composes his second stunner of a score of the year following “Spencer,” and leans heavily into the banjo and piano motifs throughout the film, quietly plucking away at nerves with the pluck of each string.

Meanwhile cinematographer Ari Wegner (“Zola,” “True History of the Kelly Gang”) shoots the landscapes with an eye for, well, landscapes. Each shot seems to contain some element of scale, whether its the smaller things within the house or the grand locations outside of it. There’s a very specific use of larger and smaller people, items, locations, etc. that create a feeling of a chess board being played with. As if someone is moving all the pieces around as they please, or trying to, for their own ends.

“The Power of the Dog” is an eerie picture that sees Cumberbatch playing against his typically likable persona with a stable of actors all delivering excellent performances. It’s a gorgeous film to just live in for two hours, but it makes no concessions for its material. Either you approach it on its own terms, slow pace and all, or you just get off the horse. Those who commit will find themselves thoroughly rewarded with a fantastically taut dramatic tale that's suspenseful as it is beautiful. 4.5/5

A Quiet Place Part II - Review

 

How hard is it to recapture lightning in a bottle? Well, as it turns out, not that hard at all. As his next directorial effort following 2018’s “A Quiet Place,” writer/director John Krasinski (“The Office,” “Promised Land”) has successfully managed to duplicate the first film’s tension and action, while also expanding on the world and characters. It might not feel as unique as the first go around, but it's nevertheless engaging.

In a world where monstrous aliens that can only navigate via sound have crash landed on Earth, humans attempt to survive by maintaining as quiet of an existence as possible. “A Quiet Place Part II” picks up almost exactly where the first film ended and, after some brief flashbacks to before the monsters arrived, follows Evelyn, played by Emily Blunt (“Edge of Tomorrow,” “Sicario”), and her two kids Regan, played by Millicent Simmonds (“Wonderstruck,” “A Quiet Place”), and Marcus, played by Noah Jupe (“Ford v. Ferrari,” “Honey Boy”), as the leave their farm and attempt to survive with the help of an old friend from before the monsters, Emmett, played by Cillian Murphy (“Inception,” “Peaky Blinders”).

Even without Krasinski’s presence, the film still has a big heart at its core. So much of the tension comes from the discussions of safety versus risk, how to balance needing to leave safety to either gather supplies or try to better their lives versus the risk of encountering the creatures. Blunt is an absolute powerhouse, showcasing her broad range by, like the rest of the cast, delivering so much with virtually no words.

Jupe and Murphy are also excellent. Jupe perfectly showcases the panicky teenage reactions to the horrors that are happening around him, trying to both protect his family and also trying to survive himself. Murphy is a bit more cynical than the rest of the family, and pairing him with their most optimistic member allows for some great back and forth and testing of his morals that help Murphy to deliver a stronger performance. Yet, just like the first film, it's Simmonds who absolutely steals the show. Whereas before she was the sweet, big hearted, emotional center of the film, “Part II” shows her using her hearing aid and smarts to practically become an action star. Her furrowed brow and determined nature are without a doubt the film’s biggest hook, and it's a delight to watch her steal the show in every scene she’s in.

Just like before, the effects, creature designs, practical sets, they’re all incredible. Its a fantastic showpiece for intimate practical sets, and Krasinski, despite us having seen the creatures from the first film, still hides them as much as possible, using them sparingly instead of throwing tens of them at the screen at once. For those expecting another horror escape though, the film overall feels less like a horror film than the first.

It’s not that it isn’t tense or scary, it just feels far more like an action film this time around. It’s hard to pin-point exactly why this is, but the more varying locations and larger cast probably has something to do with it, as it eliminates the isolated, helpless feeling from the first film’s singular location. The film is nearly flawless in its pacing though, effectively doling out just enough information as it flips back and forth between both plots without ever giving the audience a moment to breathe. Just as you think everything is fine, everything gets far, far worse.

Given the inherently silent nature of everything, it makes sense that the sound mixing and audio design are once again a highlight. It’s an incredibly audio heavy film that makes great use of an expansive auditory range, and that works in tandem with the writing. It's one thing if the film is silent, but if it keeps things so tense that it results in almost forcing you to be silent as well, that’s another thing entirely.

Krasinski does also shake things up with the overall world of the film by introducing a number of new elements that help to flesh things out and make this feel like a true second part to the first film, rather than just a sequel to a successful film. The radio frequencies, the presence of water and fire, and even other people are delivered not just in interesting ways, but piecemeal throughout the film to keep tensions high and audiences on their toes.

This helps greatly in offsetting the fact that the film, as excellent as it is, doesn’t quite have the same specialness that the first one did. Like it or not, once a film becomes a franchise there’s just something about it that feels less different, and the same thing happens here. Krasinski may not be able to recapture the same exact terrifying lightning in a bottle feeling, but he gets about as damn close as possible.

“A Quiet Place Part II” is exactly what its title says it is. As a continuation of the first film, it works wonders in fleshing everything out; the characters, the world, the monsters, the technical film-making skill, to craft a film that is easily worthy of sitting alongside the first. Some may be disappointed that it's less of a horror film this time around, but that’s a small complaint towards what is still a thrilling, tense adventure. 4/5

Tick, Tick... Boom! - Review

 

Jonathan Larson is, while not a household name, a person who’s likely far more well known than people realize. While he’s an obvious figure for people in the entertainment world, the name will likely elicit puzzled looks from everyone else. That is, until you accompany it with, “you know, the guy who created Rent.” But that’s not what we’re talking about here. What we’re talking about is a far more specific project of his.

A bit of backstory: Larson died of an aortic dissection in the early morning of January 25th, 1996, the day of Rent’s first off-Broadway performance. The tragedy is, of course, that he never got to see the massive success that came for his show that was inspired by the people he loved and the place he lived. After his death, playwright David Auburn took Larson’s long-gestating semi-autobiographical one-man show “tick, tick… BOOM!” and turned it into a three man musical piece which went on to incredible success and acclaim.

Thus, here we have a film adaptation, directed by Lin-Manuel Miranda (“Hamilton,” “In the Heights”) in his film directorial debut, written by Steven Levenson (“Dear Evan Hansen,” “Masters of Sex”), and starring Andrew Garfield (“The Social Network,” “The Amazing Spider-Man”) as Jonathan himself. Garfield is where we’re going to start because, while there’s a lot to dig into with this film, Garfield is an absolute force of nature. He nails the awkward late-20s, early 30s nature of Larson and his starving artist struggles, without ever over or underplaying his more toxic elements. Yes, he’s dealing with a lot, but Miranda and Garfield never let him escape from the fact that it still doesn’t excuse how he sometimes acts.

With the nature of how the film is constructed, flipping back and forth between the “stage” version and a fully played out version allows for an interesting mixture of film and theatre acting that creates an odd concoction of different styles that works wonders for the kind of larger than life story being told. While Garfield is the only major actor to play the same role in the staged and filmed versions present here, the fact that Miranda has chosen to do it this way helps to showcase one of the most important things about Larson; how he saw the people around him.

It’s the kind of story where you learn about someone by seeing the people around him and how he treats them and thinks of them, instead of just giving long speeches about who they are as a person. Those are here too, but they feel emboldened thanks to the film’s allowance of those small, intimate, slow moments. Some are punctuated by music for emotional or dramatic effect, and some are just allowed to be soft and quiet.

But let’s not forget about the stellar supporting cast. While all are excellent, the two who will absolutely steal your heart are Alexandra Shipp (“Love, Simon,” “Straight Outta Compton”) as Susan, Jonathan’s girlfriend, and Robin de Jesus (“The Boys in the Band”) as Michael, Jonathan’s best friend. Shipp is positively delightful and is the kind of character who’s easy to love for numerous reasons, no matter the state she’s in, both due to the script and Shipp’s undeniable charm. Meanwhile Jesus is an absolute force to be reckoned with. He has a heartbreakingly honest friendship with Jonathan and the love the two have for each other is pure and evident in every moment.

Likely the smartest thing Miranda and Levenson have done in this adaptation is making sure that the theatrical spirit shines throughout. Not just in the semi-frame narrative that swaps back and forth between the staged and filmed story, but in the semi-fantastical nature of it all. Musical numbers have some unrealistic fantasy to them because they're musical numbers. While it isn’t a grand spectacle of colors and lights, it finds a wonderful middle ground between having fun with itself and still being grounded in reality without going into Tom Hooper levels of grounded-ness.

The source of that mixture of fantastical and realism likely comes from the fact that, for theatre people everywhere and for Miranda and Levenson, Larson was a remarkable figure. He was the kind of person you’d want to be, working on his dream projects with his friends and somehow keeping all the plates spinning. Regardless of whether you love or hate it, one of the most pure and evident things throughout this entire film is that everyone, but especially Miranda and Levenson, love and admire Larson and want to showcase his talent with as many people as possible. It’s a special thing when someone gets to direct a project about someone they love and the adoration spills out of every pore.

Essentially, “tick, tick… BOOM!” is a wonderful tribute to a man gone far too soon, but more than that, it represents a fantastic debut from Lin-Manuel Miranda as a film director and showcases the absolute best way to do a musical adaptation. It bleeds with emotion and fantastic performances, has some incredible musical numbers, but most importantly, lets itself have just enough fun to be enjoyed by all without sacrificing any emotion or getting bogged down in seriousness. It's a fantastic film that will absolutely tug at audiences' heart strings for years and years to come. 5/5

Belfast - Review

 

They say you can never go home again, and while the saying is nice, what it actually means is far less cute. The saying is meant to describe the feeling of being an adult and returning to where you grew up, seeing so many things without the sparkle of wide-eyed childhood innocence. Writer/director Kenneth Branagh (“Henry V (1989),” “Murder on the Orient Express (2017)”) seems to be trying to recapture that feeling of childhood whimsy with his film “Belfast,” and it absolutely does not go off without any, pun-intended, troubles.

Starring newcomer Jude Hill as Buddy, the film focuses on Buddy’s family trying to navigate the uncomfortable new reality of living in Ireland in the midst of The Troubles, a complicated ethno-centric conflict that mostly saw Protestants attacking Catholics. That’s a massive simplification of the events, and we’ll get into this simplification later on.

The film also stars Jamie Dornan (“Once Upon a Time,” “Fifty Shades of Grey”) as Buddy’s father, Caitríona Balfe as Buddy’s mother (“Outlander,” “Ford v. Ferrari”), Judi Dench (“Philomena,” “Skyfall”) as Buddy’s grandmother, and Ciarán Hinds (“Zack Snyder’s Justice League,” “The Eclipse”) as Buddy’s grandfather. The supporting cast is great, they deliver these performances with nuance and heart. Balfe is a particular standout, balancing the dual qualities of loving mother and firm parent expertly, Dornan as well proves to be great, although he simply just has less screen time to work with.

Dench is good, but she seems to be more coasting off of being Judi Dench than anything. Hinds meanwhile is a revelation, a perfect portrait of the warm grandfatherly figure seen in so many of these types of films, but rarely done with such excellence and kindness. Hill, meanwhile, is fine. He’s fine. There’s nothing objectively wrong with his performance, but it's not the kind that leaves a lot of an impression either. In reality, he just feels like a kid, for better or worse, with nothing to make him stand out from the crowd.

What does leave a massive impression in “Belfast” is its extremely scattershot nature. It’s almost as if Branagh loaded a buckshot gun with story ideas and went for quantity over quality. They aren’t bad, but none of them get the time to grow that’s really needed. There is a through-line to it all, being the aforementioned Troubles, but even that feels forgotten most of the time, despite the physical environment around Buddy changing because of it.

It leads to a lack of any sort of true emotional arc, despite the film featuring so many moments where emotional things happen. It’s a perfect way to distinguish between the two; just because you feature a standoff where someone has a gun pointed at them doesn’t mean tension is automatically created. It can still fall flat. In just ninety minutes, we go from Buddy crushing on a girl, to Buddy joining his cousin's gang, to the family struggling with whether or not to leave Belfast, to Buddy’s grandfather’s health troubles, and more.

It’s a lot to pack into just an hour-and-a-half, and it unfortunately feels like there are times where some things just fall through the cracks. There are also massive tonal changes that don’t work most of the time. Yes, this is a movie about childhood, but as a filmmaker, Branagh fails to bridge the gaps between the dire and the joyful, resulting in tonal whiplash when we go from scenes featuring Christmas presents and playing in the street to deaths and people being held at gunpoint. It’s a whole lot of moments that tell us how characters are feeling, without ever actually showing us what made them feel this way, even when they bring up specific moments that would make for great scenes that’d be easy to slot into the middle of the film.

It is gorgeously presented though. The black and white cinematography is no slouch, and it manages to provide a very particular kind of look to this story. It does end up being a double edged sword though, as the moments of color that spring up don’t end up eliciting the sense of wonder they’re hoping for. Instead it results in a kind of weird moment where you become more aware of the film-making process and, instead of being lost in the wonder like Buddy, you just think “how did they do that?” It does sound great as well, thanks to a score by Belfast legend Van Morrison that keeps things lively and memorable through his music.

“Belfast” is a tricky and messy film. To make the inevitable and obvious comparison, this is technically Branagh’s “Roma.” However, separate from any comparisons to that film, “Belfast” is the odd film that’s too short to provide a satisfying narrative, yet feels too long thanks to the scattershot nature of the plot that it has. It’s gorgeous to look at and the actors nail what they’re given, but it's hard to get invested when the events are so jarring and fail to really elicit any genuine emotional investment. It’s a pretty film and nice for a spell, but it doesn’t make any compelling argument to visit “Belfast” more than once. 3/5

Clifford the Big Red Dog (2021) - Review

It’s easy to be cynical about family films. There are obviously standouts, but not every movie can be “Paddington” and more often than not, studios are happy to cram beloved characters into formulaic plots just to sell toys and DVDs for car trips. And Paramount decided that, to bring “Clifford the Big Red Dog” to life in live action, they would go with Walt Becker, the director of “Van Wilder” and “Wild Hogs.” The results speak for themselves.

The film follows Emily-Elizabeth Howard, played by Darby Camp (“Big Little Lies,” “The Christmas Chronicles”), as she finds a tiny red puppy she names Clifford who, overnight, grows to be a gigantic dog, resulting in Emily and her uncle Casey, played by Jack Whitehall (“Jungle Cruise,” “Bad Education”), having to hide Clifford from a genetics company rune by Zack Tieran, played by Tony Hale (“Veep,” “Arrested Development”), who wants to take Clifford to find out what makes him so large.

This is, if it wasn’t already obvious, an incredibly generic and lifeless plot to shove a character like Clifford into. The fact that the books, PBS animated show, and animated film never even came close to a plot like this despite existing for years says a lot about the pure laziness on display throughout the entire film.

Despite Camp’s best efforts, Emily is just a bland and uninteresting protagonist, burdened by being “different” despite never showing us what it is that makes her different. She’s smart, sure, but she also goes to a fancy private New York school, implying that everyone else around her who makes fun of her for being “different” is also smart. Yet, the film and her character hinges on the idea that she’s lambasted for this the entire time she’s at school.

Whitehall is doing some absolutely pathetic work as Casey, but it's not entirely his fault. His woefully miscast, a handsome, slim, British lad being cast to play a lazy New Yorker uncle who eats candy for breakfast and doesn’t care about school. Clearly Jack Black was unavailable. Yet, despite this, Whitehall isn’t helping by clearly phoning the entire job in, regurgitating the rote plot when needed and otherwise hamming it up for the camera.

Hale also isn’t doing good work by any means, but his is at least kind of excusable given that everything based around the evil tech organization known as Lyfegro is terrible. It's just a boring antagonistic force that doesn’t even really make all that much sense in the grand scheme of the film.

That’s the biggest through-line with everything in this film: it's all just so boring. It’s hard to believe any kid would be entertained by this film. It's too slow to keep anyone’s attention under the age of 12 and it's too boring and simple to keep anyone’s attention over the age of 12. It alternates between extremely cloying jokes and sequences of forced, manipulative emotions.

At its core, the reason behind all of these issues is clear. This is a film that doesn’t respect its target demographic. This is the kind of film that gets made with the attitude of “it’s for kids, we don’t have to try” and gives a bad look to an industry still churning out gems like “Paddington” and “The Mitchells vs. The Machines.” It's lazy and just feels bad to see a family film in this day and age care so little about being anything more than being a future “3pm Movie of the Day” on Nickelodeon.

If you want a perfect example of how lazy this film is, in the beginning before Clifford has grown, the CGI model used for his tiny size is the same exact model as his large one. Nothing was adjusted for size or stature or anything, simply sized up in the post-production process because why bother? Even the CGI for Clifford in general is poor. It looks hazy and unfinished, as if he’s floating above all the other characters and sets instead of being a real part of the environment. A chase sequence later in the film features a CGI Emily-Elizabeth riding Clifford with, spoiler alert, some of the absolute worst CGI used for her in any big studio movie in recent memory.

There’s really nothing good to say about this 2021 live-action film of  “Clifford the Big Red Dog.’ The acting is hammy and poor, the CGI is bad, and it has so little respect for its target audience. It’s a film that clearly isn’t even trying to provide anyone with a decent experience, and yet it's so boring that it's hard to even get worked up enough to write a scathing review for it. It’s just lazy, not worth the time to think about, not bad enough to be funny and not good enough to be enjoyable. 1.5/5

Spencer - Review

 

There are a huge variety of ways to approach doing a “true life” tale, let alone a biopic specifically. The most common is, of course, showing as many real life scenes as possible all building up to a climactic moment in the subject's life. That’s all well and good, but there’s another, arguably better option. Instead of trying to recreate someone’s life, the filmmakers try to recreate their head space, way of thinking, and overall personality more than recreate their life’s events.

That’s the way director Pablo Larraín (“Jackie,” “No (2012)”) and writer Steven Knight (“Locke,” “Dirty Pretty Things”) have chosen to make “Spencer.” Instead of recreating large swaths of Princess Diana’s life, they’ve chosen to focus on one three day Christmas holiday chunk of time, the events of which aren’t even known to the public.

Kristen Stewarts’s (“Twilight,” “Personal Shopper”) performance is exactly as good as you’ve heard. She practically loses herself in Diana, bringing to life a woman who is clearly struggling and suffocating under the royal lifestyle and yet still finds the strength to make things as good as possible for her sons and those she loves in the Royal household. It’s a performance of quiet empathy and resilience; you get the sense that you’re watching someone at a turning point in their life, as if witnessing the moment Diana realized what was going on, who she would become, and what she needed to do to change it.

While her husband is in the film, his performance from Jack Farthing (“Poldark,” “The Riot Club”) is one of minimalism, both in terms of screen time and nuance. Timothy Spall (“Secrets & Lies,” “Mr. Turner”) on the other hand absolutely steals the show whenever he’s on screen. He manages to be both extremely kind and also ruthlessly rigid in the traditions Diana is attempting to buck, meaning the two butt heads in the calmest of ways. Sean Harris (“24 Hour Party People,” “Southcliffe”) also makes a large impression with a more minor role. As the Royal Head Chef and friend of Diana, he brings out some of the most vulnerable moments in the film, with his distinct accent and kind smile setting him apart.

But none of them have anything on Sally Hawkins (“Paddington 2,” “The Shape of Water”). Her scenes with Stewart are divine, displaying a warm friendship that is ruthlessly juxtaposed against the coldness of the rest of the royal family’s interactions with Diana. Their interactions are the heart and lifeblood of the entire film, and their friendship is used in cunning and chilling ways throughout the entire runtime.

It can’t be understated how genius the film’s use of Diana’s sense of reality is. Numerous moments play out with a thin air of mystery to them, leaving the audience and Diana questioning what’s actually happening around them. The through-lines of a book about Anne Boleyn and Diana’s pearl necklace are perfectly woven into each scene, and even the ones where it feels like nothing much has happened are re-framed by the time credits roll.

This does mean that, despite the high level of quality on display, one caveat must be mentioned. For those expecting or wanting a film that details who Diana was, what she did throughout her life, or the events leading up to her death, this is not the film for you. Yet, for those who know what they’re getting themselves into, prepare to be entranced.

Cinematographer Claire Mathon (“Portrait of a Lady on Fire,” “Strange by the Lake”) helps the film feel as otherworldly and unreliable as Diana’s sense of mind is. It seems as though events closely tied to Diana are shot with an airy flow to them, whereas the Royal family is shot in a rigid, structured way. The method pairs wonderfully with Jonny Greenwood’s (“There Will Be Blood,” “The Master”) score. The cool trumpets give an almost noir feeling to the events, further portraying Diana as someone struggling with trusting those around her.

“Spencer” is a thrilling example of how forgetting facts in favor of communicating the truth to who someone is. Kristen Stewart is practically daring awards voters not to nominate her, and the entire supporting cast deserves accolades as well. It's a truly wondrous piece of cinema, cool and crisp, yet brimming with life and love for one woman gone too soon. 5/5